---

IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

“The Tribunal”

Case Number: CT 007JUN2017

In the matter between:

DIAGEO BRANDS B.V.                                                                                         Applicant

AND

JONNY WALKER TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD                                                     Respondent

(2012/093319/07)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION:

[1] The  applicant  is  Diageo  Brands B. V.,  a  Dutch  company with  its registered business address    at Molenwerf 12 , 1014 BG, Amsterdam.  The  company  forms  part  of  the  Diageo Group  of Companies.  This  group  of  companies,  of  which the  applicant forms  part,  is  an  industry  leader  in  respect   of  alcoholic beverages, and  trades in  over 180 countries under iconic brands including Johnnie Walker, which, according to applicant, is  one of  its most successful  brands, and   is   the   subject   of  this application.

[2] The  respondent is  Jonny Walker  Transport  ( Pty)  Ltd,  a company duly  incorporated  and  registered  in   terms  of  the  laws of  the Republic of South Africa, with registration number 2012 / 093319 / 07 .

[3] The applicant has submitted proof ,  in the form of a  return of  non - service on the respondent, by the Sheriff of the court, who made attempts to  serve  the  application  documents (form  CTR 142 and affidavit) on the respondent on 15 June 2017 , without success. The respondent’ s address in Pietermaritzburg, KZN, could not be located. I am  therefore  satisfied  that  the requirements of S.142 ( 2 ) of the Regulations  to  the  Companies Act  71  of  2008  (“ The Act”) have been duly complied  with.

[4] The applicant has filed this application in terms of S. 11( 2 )( b)( i ii ) and ( c) ( i) of the Act, alleging that respondent’ s  name, Jonny Walker Transport ( Pty) Ltd,   is confusingly   similar  to the registered trade    mark, JOHHNIE W ALKER,   and that the registered owner of  the  trade mark has  not consented to  the  use of  the trade  mark.  The applicant  therefore requests  that  the tribunal grant the relief sought,   ordering the respondent   to choose a  new name.

Submissions by Applicant

[5] Applicant  deposed  to  an  affidavit  as  required  by Regulation 142 ( 2 ), and submitted that  it  is  the  registered proprietor  of  the JOHNNIE  W ALKER  trade  mark  across  the globe,  including, inter alia, trade  mark   registration   number 1917 / 01226   JOHNNIE WALKER in  class 33  for whisky, filed on 11  July 1917 ,  and other JOHNNIE WALKER alcoholic beverages filed on various subsequent  dates.  The applicant  trades  in  approximately  180 markets,  with  offices in 80  countries. It  has  made  extensive  use of  its JOHNNY WALKER trade mark across  the  globe.  With annual  sales  of over  130  million  bottles,  the  applicant  submits that  the JOHNNIE W ALKER range is the biggest selling scotch whiskey brand in the world. The applicant  further  submits  that the JOHNNIE  W ALKER  brand has   become   part   of   a   global culture and has since become the biggest whiskey brand in the world and has  become even  more  popular through recognition of its quality. The applicant submits that it has therefore acquired strong rights in the JOHNNIE W ALKER trade mark under the common law, in addition to its statutory rights, and that on this basis, the JOHNNIE W ALKER trade mark qualifies as a  well - known trade mark in South  Africa.

[6] The   applicant  believes   that   the   respondent is  attempting   to benefit  from  the  significant  reputation  that  the  applicant  has built, and that there  is  a  likelihood  that  the  public,  or  a section thereof, might be misled by the similarity of the names under consideration, or where that  there is  a  serious risk  of  confusion of the public.

[7] The  applicant seeks that  the  tribunal consider S. 11    of the  Act, with  particular  reference  to   S 11  ( 2),  in   granting  the relief  it seeks.

Application of the  Law

[8] This is an application in terms of S. 160 read with S. 11   ( 2 ) of  the Companies Act. The applicant seeks relief in  terms of  S.  160  ( 1 ) of the Act,  which  provides  for  specific  remedies  available  in instances  where  the  tribunal  has  determined  that  an application complies with the requirements of S.11 .  I t states:

“ A person to whom a notice  is  delivered  in  terms  of this Act with  respect to  an  application for  reservation  of a name, registration of a defensive name, application  to transfer the reservation of a  name or  the registration of a defensive name, or the registration of a company’ s name, or any other person with an interest in  the  name  of a company, may apply to  the  COMPANIES TRIBUNAL  in the prescribed manner and form for a determination whether the name, or the reservation,  registration  or  use of the name, or the transfer of any such reservation  or  registration of  a  name, satisfies the  requirements  of this Act ( s 11 ).”

[9] Section 160  ( 2 )( b)  which is  relevant to  this  case, provides  that an  application  in  terms  of  subsection  1  above ,  may  be made on good cause shown at any time  after  the  date  of reservation or registration of the name that is the subject of the application,  in any other case.

[10] Section  160 ( 3 )   provides  for  the  powers  of  the  tribunal where subsections  ( 1 )  and   ( 2 )   have   been   satisfied.  I t provides  as follows:

“After considering an application made in terms of subsection ( 1 ), and any submissions by the applicant and any other person with an interest in the name or proposed name that is the  subject  of  the  application, the COMPANIES TRIBUNAL-

(a)  Must  make  a  determination  whether  that name, or  the  reservation,  registration  or  use  of  the name,  or  the   transfer   of   the reservation  or registration  of  the name, satisfies the requirements of this Act ( s. 11 ); and

(b)   May make an administrative order directing  - ( i) The Commission to-

(cc) cancel the reservation  of  a name, or the registration of a defensive name.

(ii) a  company to  choose a  new  name, and file   a notice of    amendment    to its  Memorandum of Incorporation, within  a period  and  on  any   conditions that the tribunal   considers   just, equitable and expedient in the circumstances, including a condition exempting the company fro m the requirement to pay the prescribed fee for filing the notice of  amendment contemplated in  this paragraph.”

[11] The  tribunal is  therefore tasked with  considering this application and satisfying itself that it complies with  the requirements  of  s. 11 ( 2) which provides:

“ The name of a  company must-

(a)   Not be the same  as-

(iii)  A  registered  trademark  belonging to a person other than the company, or a mark in respect of which an application has  been filed in the Republic for registration  as a trade mark or a  well- known  trade mark as contemplated in section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1993 ( Act  no.  194 of  1993 ), unless the registered owner of that mark has consented in writing to  the  use  of the mark as the name of the    company.”

(b)  Not   be   confusingly   similar   to  a    name, trade mark,   word   or    expression contemplated   in paragraph ( a) unless-

(iii) In the case of a  name  similar  to  a trade mark or mark referred to in paragraph (a)( iii), the company is  the registered owner of the business name, trade mark, or mark, or is authorised by the  registered  owner to use it.”\

(c)   Not   falsely imply  or   suggest,  or   be   such as would reasonably  mislead  a  person  to believe incorrectly, that the company-

(i) Is   part   of,   or   associated   with,   any   other person or entity.”

[12] Section 11  lists  the  criteria  applicable  for  company names. On assessment of applicant’s name and that of respondent, one can easily identify the similarity in  the  names. Both applicant name JOHNNIE W ALKER and respondent name JONNY W ALKER are the same name. While they may  differ slightly in spelling, the pronunciation and sound ( aurally) is the same. In essence, there is resemblance between the two. I t is apparent that the dominant and striking   feature   in   respondent’s name   JONNY   WALKER TRANSPORT ( PTY) LTD   is JONNY   W ALKER.   The dominant

feature JONNY WALKER is virtually identical to the applicant’ s JOHNNIE W ALKER, as submitted by  the applicant.

[13] The applicant has submitted further that  it  has  not  consented, in writing or otherwise, to the use of  its trade mark or  a  confusingly similar mark by the respondent.

[14] As  the   Act   requires,  the   name  must   not   be  the   same or confusingly similar to a  registered trade mark registered in terms of  the  Trade  Marks  Act,  unless  the  owner  has  consented  in writing  that  the  mark  can   be  used  as  a company   name.   In Kreditbank van Suid –  Afrika v  Registreur van Maatskappye 1978 ( 2 )  SA  644  (W )  at  651 ,  the  court refused an application under S. 48 of the 1973 Companies Act, challenging  an  order  by  the Registrar ( now  Commissioner) that a company change its  name as  being  undesirable.  It  was  held that  the  name  could  lead to nconfusion, both in South Africa and overseas, with  the  trade  name of certain foreign companies  which,  although  not  registered as companies in South Africa, did do business in    SA.

[15] Applicant  has  established  that  JOHNNIE  W ALKER  brand is a global brand that  has  invested billions on  the  promotion of  the brand. It has made extensive and continued use of the JOHNNIE WALKER trade mark throughout the world, including   SA, through most forms of media. The JOHNNIE WALKER brand has indeed been infused into the South African  culture  and  is well- known. There is a serious risk of  confusion  of  the  public, which  causes the  undesirability  of  the  name  JONNY  W ALKER. In Azisa Pty) Ltd v Azisa Media CC  [ 2002 ]  2  All  SA 488 ( C)  at 500 , the court held that a company name may be  deemed undesirable in circumstances where it is likely to  mislead or deceive the public, or is the same or  similar  to  that  of  another and  as  a  result  is likely  to  lead  to  confusion  amongst  member s   of  the  public.  In New  Media  Publishing  ( Pty)  Ltd  v  Eating out  Web  Services  CC 2005 ( 5 )  SA  388 ( C)  at  394 ,  relating to the  Trade  Marks  Act  on name similarities, the court held:

“there is, it  seems to  me, an interdependence between two legs   of the inquiry: the less the similarity between  the  respective  goods or services of  the  parties, the  greater will  be  the  degree of  resemblance required between the respective marks before it can be said that there is a likelihood of deception or confusion in  the use of  the allegedly offending  mark”

[16] Indeed, the  notional  customer  will,  in  all  probability, remember JONNY W ALKER as  the  name  of  the  organization where goods can be purchased at a store with  JOHNNIE  W  ALKER  as  its name.

[17] This   application   is   comparably   similar   to   the application of Diageo Brands B. V. v  Jonny Walker Fast Food (  Pty)  Ltd  ( case no. CT 009 JUN2016 ), wherein the tribunal held that:

“Although JOHNNIE and JONNY are not spelled the same, they do compare aurally. The spelling does visually differentiate between the two. We have  to  look at the notional customer and how  such  a  customer would remember both  names.

When considering the notional customer,  comparing the names and marks and  how  the  names  are  viewed  as they are encountered in the marketplace ( the names will not be kept side by side), I agree with the applicant that the notional customer will in all probability  remember JOHNNIE WALKER as the name of the organization.”

[18] The   tribunal   further   concluded,  as  I   concur,   that JOHNNIE WALKER   is   the   dominant   feature   and   is   the main   idea   or impression left in the mind of  the  customer.

FINDINGS

[19] The name  JONNY W ALKER  is  confusingly similar to  JOHNNIE WALKER FAST FOOD and there is a reasonable likelihood  of confusion.

[20] JOHNNIE W ALKER is a  well- known trade mark and  applicant has not consented to  the use of  the mark as the name   of respondent.

ORDER:

It is therefore ordered  that:

-   The Respondent chooses a new name that is not similar to the JOHNNIE W ALKER trade mark owned by  the  applicant;

-   In light of the non- service of application documents on the respondent due to unlocated address, the CIPC is ordered to  cancel or alternatively, change the name of  the   respondent.

________________

 

B. Zulu

30 August 2017

---